Brian Hill's editorial was offensive for several reasons.
The most offensive part was the assertion that spending $15.5
billion to expand freeways will "by relieving congestion
in our urban areas ... strike a blow for clean air". Anyone
who thinks about this for half a minute will realize that you
can't achieve cleaner air by widening freeways. Common sense (and
recent scientific research) indicates that providing expanded
roads not only speeds up traffic (temporarily, until the freeway
fills up again!), but, more importantly, causes people to drive
farther and more often. It also opens up new areas for development,
further expanding the auto-dependent areas of the state and further
increasing traffic. The inevitable result is more air pollution
and more fuel consumption, not less. If freeway
expansion could clean up the air, Los Angeles would be a paradise.

The heading "CSAA supports two ballot measures to improve
transportation" is, quite simply, not true. I am part of
the CSAA, and I have never been asked for my opinion on this issue.

Rather than being a "long range solution", the
gas tax will just dig California deeper into a hole containing
Greenhouse Effect droughts, more skin cancer caused by the Ozone
Depletion (due, in large part, to automobile air conditioners),
intolerable air pollution, and economic blight due to squandering
scarce transportation funds on the most inefficient form of transport.

Yes, we need a gas tax, but only if the proceeds go toward
environmentally sound projects like electric trains or reducing
the national debt!

Readers would be better advised to vote for the Planning
and Conservation League's Rail Bond Initiative, which will do
much more to relieve congestion, without the environmental defects
of freeways.